Trump's question would be "Can I make money or gain personal power by isolating America?" And if the answer is yes, that's what he'll do. The whole 'America First' schtick, with which Trump is associated, his questioning of the value of NATO, and indeed suggesting that withdrawing from it is an option, all points to him considering it to be in his interests.
I see your Typhoon and raise you aircraft carriers with no aircraft and Apex APCs which are so badly designed that soldiers travelling in them spew up, as well as being millions over budget and behind time.
I think we are in an era where defensive weaponry is cheaper and easier to employ than the corresponding offensive weapons, so Russia defending its gains might be a much harder nut to crack than Russia trying to move forward against stiff opposition. So in spite of the ease with which the US obliterated Saddam Hussein's forces, I'm not convinced that NATO would be Russia, especially a Russia in defence, quite so straightly.
Trump makes a good point about NATO. All Nato countries should be paying at least 2%
I agree @Telford . And a few more countries, like Austria, Switzerland and Ireland, should join NATO. Because in the event of an all-out war they would almost certainly be relying on the protection of NATO.
I agree @Telford . And a few more countries, like Austria, Switzerland and Ireland, should join NATO. Because in the event of an all-out war they would almost certainly be relying on the protection of NATO.
In fairness to the Swiss they have been taking seriously their defence against invasion for a long time. I think they decommissioned a lot after the Cold War ended but they've put some serious thought into it. Ireland, I think, would be asking "protection"? From what exactly? Ireland has been threatened by invaders from one place and one place only for the last thousand years or so: its larger neighbour across the Irish Sea. Whatever intentions Putin may have, they don't involve attacking Ireland.
1) Trump's question would be "Can I make money or gain personal power by isolating America?" And if the answer is yes, that's what he'll do. The whole 'America First' schtick, with which Trump is associated, his questioning of the value of NATO, and indeed suggesting that withdrawing from it is an option, all points to him considering it to be in his interests.
2) I see your Typhoon and raise you aircraft carriers with no aircraft and Apex APCs which are so badly designed that soldiers travelling in them spew up, as well as being millions over budget and behind time.
3) I think we are in an era where defensive weaponry is cheaper and easier to employ than the corresponding offensive weapons, so Russia defending its gains might be a much harder nut to crack than Russia trying to move forward against stiff opposition. So in spite of the ease with which the US obliterated Saddam Hussein's forces, I'm not convinced that NATO would be Russia, especially a Russia in defence, quite so straightly.
1) I know he asked his advisers about leaving, and meant it. He imagines Europe would have to do a deal with him to defend itself against Russia; Europe's self interest would serve America's twice, as it's first line of defence against Russia and making money out of a competitor. What he thinks about Europe actually becoming non-aligned, as neutral as Austria, and the threat to US interests that represents as Ukraine, Moldova and the Baltic states fall, as Serbia rises I don't know. But my guess is 'shrug', to a non-quantifiable possibility.
2) I can find no reference to Apex APCs. And it would be air, airborne, mechanized, naval, amphibious, combined arms and operations. No risky Black Sea carrier groups needed. Risky because as Russian forces are annihilated, after their battlefield nuclear attack on Ukraine to satisfy Russian hawks in a scenario I can't now envisage, they would be strongly tempted to use nuclear torpedoes and/or cruise or ballistic nuclear missiles on NATO Black Sea forces as a Parthian shot. Such forces would have to operate from the Med at first anyway. If they nuked NATO navies in the Black Sea, what do we do next? I would suggest nothing. The Med...
3) I hear what you say, as it's true about $defence >> $offence (which is why Trump must protect Europe in Ukraine), but NATO $offence is way above Russia's $defence.
I hope we never have occasion to prove the NATO is better than Russia, though I agree it is probably true, even if it is, any war between the two is still going to be utterly devastating.
No, indeed. Which is why I suspect the eventual outcome will be the partition of the Ukraine with the Crimea and eastern parts going to Russia and the western parts aligning themselves with the West.
The middle parts of the country will then be disputed for many years to come.
The Ukrainians won't recover Crimea, but they'll hold on to their western provinces. In the meantime, there'll be more cities destroyed, more casualties on both sides and misery all round.
The Ukraine's only chance now is for Trump to lose the US election - which for all @Gramps49's protestations doesn't appear as certain as he hopes.
I'm sure the Ukraine will continue to do damage to the Black Sea fleet and hit targets inside Russia but the chances of them launching a counter-offensive and driving the Russians back across the border look pretty slim. And if NATO does put boots on the ground or more US-supplied weaponry then that pushes Putin's finger closer to the button.
The Global South isn't supporting Kyiv. Russia's weathering the sanctions through trade with China. It has pals in Beijing, Pyongyang, Tehran and Delhi.
Sorry @Gramps49 I'd like you to be right on this one but I don't think you are.
We're all between a rock and a hard place. This one is going to rumble on and on and on.
If there is no will to provoke Putin by deploying ground troops now, surely there would be even less to do so after he had shown himself capable of pushing the nuclear button?
If he’s already used a nuke then there are only two options left open to the rest of the world - appease him or destroy him.
As long as he hasn’t used one we can pretend that all the diplomatic and military options in the middle are still open.
Para 1. 100%
Para 2. In what way?
Para 3. Yep. Yep. Nope. Nope. Yep.
Para 4. they could do a lot better under Trump. They're doing worse under Biden.
Para 5 1/2 Yep. 2/2 i/ii Nope. ii/ii Nope.
Para 6 Yep.
...
The Ukraine's only chance now is for Trump to lose the US election - which for all @Gramps49's protestations doesn't appear as certain as he hopes.
First of all, my views of the coming election is not a protestation, but a prognostication based on trends I have previously listed, namely, no Republican has won a significant special election, or in your terms by-election, in the last four years. Other than the border issue; the next big issue will be reproductive rights of women. In the last four years, anytime it was come up in the form of an initiative the freedom of choice has been affirmed by the people. In regard to the border issue, look for Biden to make some executive directs based on the proposed legislation the Senate has passed, but the Representatives are holding hostage. Our economy has settled down significantly. Inflation is around 3.4%. We have nearly full employment. I am looking for interest rates to be reduced before the election which will free up more money. On the other hand, Trump's numbers are soft. He claimed a significant victory in Michigan; but, in reality Hailey did get 40% of the vote. Many of those votes are the never Trump people. Polls also indicate there would be a significant drop in his support if he is convicted of a felony, but it state or federal. We know he paid Stormy Daniels hush money to hide a sexual affair and he cooked the books to hide it. What makes it a felony is he is accused of doing it for the purpose of interfering with a federal election. This trial will start on March 25 and will last about six weeks according to the court calendar. By the first part of June, we may his poll numbers to drop significantly. Then there are the civil lawsuits he has to deal with. He does not have the liquid cash to even post the required bonds as he appeals those decisions. The New York GA is now saying, in regard to the state case, she will start seizin by the end of the month. In regard uo the liable lawsuit, look for the plaintiff to begin collections proceedings as well. Trump's reported wealth will vanish before the election, and nobody likes a loser.
In regards to Ukraine: no, I think it is hard for Ukraine to be able to regain the offense. I believe Biden is now working behind the scenes to see if Putin is ready to come to the table. Putin will have the upper hand. Ukraine should expect to lose the Eastern provinces. But Kiev will have some expectations of its own, like the promise to apply for NATO membership. It will be hard to get, considering Hungary's attitude. If anything, Ukraine has shown how vulnerable the Russian forces really are. It will take a number of years for Russia to restore its strength.
In the case of Ukraine, all we can hope for is a draw. But in the case of the election, there are too many negatives for Trump to win.
If there is no will to provoke Putin by deploying ground troops now, surely there would be even less to do so after he had shown himself capable of pushing the nuclear button?
If he’s already used a nuke then there are only two options left open to the rest of the world - appease him or destroy him.
As long as he hasn’t used one we can pretend that all the diplomatic and military options in the middle are still open.
But we're not pretending this. Rather we are saying that we are taking certain military options off the table and won't even consider them. Why? because we are frightened of conflict with Russia. Reasonable inference Putin can make - "appease him" is much more likely than "destroy him" under any circumstances. All these arguments against starting WWIII apply even more after he has used nuclear weapons than before. Result - we encourage Putin to keep going, perhaps we even make it more likely that he goes nuclear because he has less reason to believe in any threatened consequences.
I hope we never have occasion to prove the NATO is better than Russia, though I agree it is probably true, even if it is, any war between the two is still going to be utterly devastating.
Nay bother. What an appalling waste of taxpayers' money.
It's true on paper. No pudding eating proof is necessary. They're so weak, Ingushetia is kicking off. That weakness must not be pushed by the West. It has no business doing so, only strengthening Ukraine defensively by an order of magnitude. That can be done regardless of the Whitehouse. Ukraine does not have the manpower to regain its lost 20% Firepower cannot achieve that, even German Taurus cruise missiles to cut the Kerch bridge.
Russia needs an excuse not to keep wasting blood and treasure. How does Putin turn the impossibility of assimilating all of Ukraine in to victory? Institutionalizing the frozen forever war like the Mexican Revolution?
If there is no will to provoke Putin by deploying ground troops now, surely there would be even less to do so after he had shown himself capable of pushing the nuclear button?
If he’s already used a nuke then there are only two options left open to the rest of the world - appease him or destroy him.
As long as he hasn’t used one we can pretend that all the diplomatic and military options in the middle are still open.
It is not necessary or proportionate to destroy Putin, if in some unimaginable scenario he nukes Ukraine. Destroy him why? And how? It is only necessary and proportionate to annihilate his Ukrainian and Black Sea forces. His move. His only friend by then being King Wrong Un.
The Ukraine's only chance now is for Trump to lose the US election - which for all @Gramps49's protestations doesn't appear as certain as he hopes.
First of all, my views of the coming election is not a protestation, but a prognostication based on trends I have previously listed, namely, no Republican has won a significant special election, or in your terms by-election, in the last four years. Other than the border issue; the next big issue will be reproductive rights of women. In the last four years, anytime it was come up in the form of an initiative the freedom of choice has been affirmed by the people. In regard to the border issue, look for Biden to make some executive directs based on the proposed legislation the Senate has passed, but the Representatives are holding hostage. Our economy has settled down significantly. Inflation is around 3.4%. We have nearly full employment. I am looking for interest rates to be reduced before the election which will free up more money. On the other hand, Trump's numbers are soft. He claimed a significant victory in Michigan; but, in reality Hailey did get 40% of the vote. Many of those votes are the never Trump people. Polls also indicate there would be a significant drop in his support if he is convicted of a felony, but it state or federal. We know he paid Stormy Daniels hush money to hide a sexual affair and he cooked the books to hide it. What makes it a felony is he is accused of doing it for the purpose of interfering with a federal election. This trial will start on March 25 and will last about six weeks according to the court calendar. By the first part of June, we may his poll numbers to drop significantly. Then there are the civil lawsuits he has to deal with. He does not have the liquid cash to even post the required bonds as he appeals those decisions. The New York GA is now saying, in regard to the state case, she will start seizin by the end of the month. In regard uo the liable lawsuit, look for the plaintiff to begin collections proceedings as well. Trump's reported wealth will vanish before the election, and nobody likes a loser.
In regards to Ukraine: no, I think it is hard for Ukraine to be able to regain the offense. I believe Biden is now working behind the scenes to see if Putin is ready to come to the table. Putin will have the upper hand. Ukraine should expect to lose the Eastern provinces. But Kiev will have some expectations of its own, like the promise to apply for NATO membership. It will be hard to get, considering Hungary's attitude. If anything, Ukraine has shown how vulnerable the Russian forces really are. It will take a number of years for Russia to restore its strength.
In the case of Ukraine, all we can hope for is a draw. But in the case of the election, there are too many negatives for Trump to win.
I hope you are right. I'm.prepared to be shown otherwise but you appear to have modified your initial optimistic forecasts of almost imminent Ukrainian victory and the recovery of the Crimea and the eastern territories.
From this side of the Pond, Trump's support seems to show no sign of diminishing despite his moral bankruptcy. Although financial bankruptcy would certainly derail him.
Thing is, I can remember when everyone seemed to be saying that Trump's first Presidency was an impossibility. Then the unthinkable happened.
I'm not saying he is definitely going to be re-elected, even from within a prison cell or without a dime to his name. But your sunny optimism about the success of Ukrainian counter-offensives did not prove justified.
Sure, that doesn't mean we should now fear the worst. None of us have a crystal ball, though.
I think, sadly, that all we can safely say is that there will be more bloodshed, more destruction, more lives ruined and more and more resentment, miayrust and hostility stored up for decades to come.
Can we calm down a little? Remember that (a) the only country that has ever detonated an atomic bomb in a war is the US and (b) Biden has never run for an office and lost.
I think the Ukrainians could have controlled the day if it were not for the Republican led House of Representatives refusing to take up the funding bill. Now, the momentum is lost.
I think the Ukrainians could have controlled the day if it were not for the Republican led House of Representatives refusing to take up the funding bill. Now, the momentum is lost.
I'll buy that to some extent, but feel they'd have held more ground rather than recovering more areas they'd previously lost.
There'd still be the kind of stalemate we have now, but perhaps with more territory in Ukrainian hands.
For the upteenth time. Trump is not going to win. It now appears he will not have enough gas to make it to the November finish line.
Do you know something the rest of us don't, @Gramps49 ?
Gramps has explained his reasoning in previous posts and it is certainly a rational argument. And to be fair, this assertion here is being made in the context of people asserting that Trump will win without any evidence to support that assertion.
I agree with Gramps' reasoning but I don't hold the conclusion as firmly as he appears to. I do think Trump won't win but I will also not deny the possibility, nor the very worrying consequences if he does.
Trump couldn't do any worse for Ukraine than is being done by America and Europe now.
That is not true.
I agree with you to some extent. It is true that Europe and the USA are not doing all they could. That is foolish and short-sighted.
I do believe Ukraine is fighting our war. Stopping Russia will cost so much less now than later.
However, it's more than a little hyperbolic to suggest Trump would be no worse. Quite apart from the material difference of cutting off all aid completely, the lack of hope of any help coming and the open encouragement to Putin would be huge.
You're right @alienfromzog, it is hyperbolic, he could do worse than they're doing now, and in fact the US position is his fault, he could change it in the twinkling of an eye. But I cannot imagine what he could do in January that is worse than what is happening now. Europe is just as exposed if not more so as not acting in its own best interests for even less valid political reasons than the US.
Come January, only with him in power, Ukraine will be better off than it is now; they and Russia settle, or Trump supplies Ukraine more than ever until they do.
Ukraine would not be better off after a settlement such as you suggest - it would be a matter of a few years (or perhaps months) before the bear returned to finish the meal.
Ukraine would not be better off after a settlement such as you suggest - it would be a matter of a few years (or perhaps months) before the bear returned to finish the meal.
That all depends on NATO being more than a paper tiger. I will take Russia five years to re-arm.
Ukraine would not be better off after a settlement such as you suggest - it would be a matter of a few years (or perhaps months) before the bear returned to finish the meal.
That all depends on NATO being more than a paper tiger. I will take Russia five years to re-arm.
If Trump gets another term Putin will have every encouragement to think that NATO is a paper tiger. Actually, not even a paper tiger, since Trump consistently casts doubt on the US commitment to it.
And I bet Russia could re-arm sufficiently in less than five years.
Ukraine would not be better off after a settlement such as you suggest - it would be a matter of a few years (or perhaps months) before the bear returned to finish the meal.
That all depends on NATO being more than a paper tiger. I will take Russia five years to re-arm.
If Trump gets another term Putin will have every encouragement to think that NATO is a paper tiger. Actually, not even a paper tiger, since Trump consistently casts doubt on the US commitment to it.
And I bet Russia could re-arm sufficiently in less than five years.
I'm sure it could if Europe does nothing. It's up to Europe.
Ukraine would not be better off after a settlement such as you suggest - it would be a matter of a few years (or perhaps months) before the bear returned to finish the meal.
That all depends on NATO being more than a paper tiger. I will take Russia five years to re-arm.
If Trump gets another term Putin will have every encouragement to think that NATO is a paper tiger. Actually, not even a paper tiger, since Trump consistently casts doubt on the US commitment to it.
And I bet Russia could re-arm sufficiently in less than five years.
I'm sure it could if Europe does nothing. It's up to Europe.
It is! So why would Ukraine be better off with a settlement? That just encourages Europe to wishfully think that maybe we don't have to do anything much after all!
Ukraine would not be better off after a settlement such as you suggest - it would be a matter of a few years (or perhaps months) before the bear returned to finish the meal.
That all depends on NATO being more than a paper tiger. I will take Russia five years to re-arm.
If Trump gets another term Putin will have every encouragement to think that NATO is a paper tiger. Actually, not even a paper tiger, since Trump consistently casts doubt on the US commitment to it.
And I bet Russia could re-arm sufficiently in less than five years.
I'm sure it could if Europe does nothing. It's up to Europe.
It is! So why would Ukraine be better off with a settlement? That just encourages Europe to wishfully think that maybe we don't have to do anything much after all!
Better off than being continuously eroded. Europe refuses to defend itself. Why should America one step removed?
Ukraine would not be better off after a settlement such as you suggest - it would be a matter of a few years (or perhaps months) before the bear returned to finish the meal.
That all depends on NATO being more than a paper tiger. I will take Russia five years to re-arm.
If Trump gets another term Putin will have every encouragement to think that NATO is a paper tiger. Actually, not even a paper tiger, since Trump consistently casts doubt on the US commitment to it.
And I bet Russia could re-arm sufficiently in less than five years.
I'm sure it could if Europe does nothing. It's up to Europe.
It is! So why would Ukraine be better off with a settlement? That just encourages Europe to wishfully think that maybe we don't have to do anything much after all!
Better off than being continuously eroded. Europe refuses to defend itself. Why should America one step removed?
I absolutely agree with the final two sentences. But not the one before.
Ukraine would not be better off after a settlement such as you suggest - it would be a matter of a few years (or perhaps months) before the bear returned to finish the meal.
That all depends on NATO being more than a paper tiger. I will take Russia five years to re-arm.
If Trump gets another term Putin will have every encouragement to think that NATO is a paper tiger. Actually, not even a paper tiger, since Trump consistently casts doubt on the US commitment to it.
And I bet Russia could re-arm sufficiently in less than five years.
I'm sure it could if Europe does nothing. It's up to Europe.
It is! So why would Ukraine be better off with a settlement? That just encourages Europe to wishfully think that maybe we don't have to do anything much after all!
Better off than being continuously eroded. Europe refuses to defend itself. Why should America one step removed?
I absolutely agree with the final two sentences. But not the one before.
What, that Ukraine isn't losing, dying death by a thousand cuts until January at least?
Under Biden Congress refuses to aid Ukraine. Europe can't because it won't. And according to Orban Trump now won't.
So if Biden wins in 8 months, that gives him 2 years to the mid terms (when he loses Congress) to arm Ukraine?
How much will Ukraine lose between the rasputitsas? With no ammunition?
What can possibly stop Ukraine being Russian by Christmas?
Some of what you say makes sense but the constant predictions of Russian inevitable victory are clearly ridiculous. I've lost count but it must be approaching 3 figures, the number of times you've stated that Russian victory is inevitable and very close.
Even if the West cut all aid now, Russia won't win this year.
Should the West do more? Absolutely.
Is Russia on the verge of total victory?
Nope. Strategically, they're still nowhere.
60 40 year old planes by the end of the year? 'Its payload typically consists of two 2,000lb (907kg) bombs, two AIM-9 Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missiles, two AIM-120 medium-range air-to-air missiles', & 500 Vulcan rounds, per sortie.
Sounds good.
If Ukraine can survive the summer.
But doubt they can average a sortie a day. Or two. Days. When they could over 30 years ago in Desert Storm. And where are they going to get the ground crew, spares and ammo?
As the GI says in Pacific when everyone else is talking religion, 'I believe in ammunition'.
Which they don't have. Which is, er, why they're losing.
Ukrainian ground crews have been training on the F16 here in the United States. Maintenance work will likely be done in Poland using private contractors. It takes a while to get maintenance crews up to speed.
Russia is gradually grinding its way forward by using up lives and equipment at a huge rate. Does it have enough resources to take over enough of Ukraine so a surrender is forced whilst continuing to do so? Will Ukraine run out of its rather more limited resources of people and equipment first? This is unclear. On the one hand the increasing use of older and older equipment (like T55 tanks) does suggest that Russia is running out of anything decent, and the losses of some of their expensive more modern equipment (airplanes and ships) is surely not sustainable. On the other hand they do keep advancing in the teeth of stiff resistance, and I've seen reports that they are ramping up their production of artillery shells.
Making progress towards their aims, yes. Winning? I'm not sure. And if the rest of Europe and the US increased their supplies of weaponry to Ukraine to any significant extent the balance would I think tilt the other way.
Russia is gradually grinding its way forward by using up lives and equipment at a huge rate. Does it have enough resources to take over enough of Ukraine so a surrender is forced whilst continuing to do so? Will Ukraine run out of its rather more limited resources of people and equipment first? This is unclear. On the one hand the increasing use of older and older equipment (like T55 tanks) does suggest that Russia is running out of anything decent, and the losses of some of their expensive more modern equipment (airplanes and ships) is surely not sustainable. On the other hand they do keep advancing in the teeth of stiff resistance, and I've seen reports that they are ramping up their production of artillery shells.
Making progress towards their aims, yes. Winning? I'm not sure. And if the rest of Europe and the US increased their supplies of weaponry to Ukraine to any significant extent the balance would I think tilt the other way.
I find following this war tricky as there is a paucity of reliable information. I have seen reports of Russian shell production being ramped up. I have also seen credible critics note that Russians over massively overstating their production capacity.
However, the wider point is that whilst the war is horrendous and Ukraine desperately needs peace, and I think it will go on for a lot longer, I do not think there's any sign of Russia winning.
I am not a military expert or a military strategist but I have read a lot and there's a concept that I think helps to understand these complex analyses. Essentially, this model of thinking is to look at the strategic aims rather than the tactical.
A good counterpoint on this is that the US and allies won easily in Iraq in 2003 and in Afghanistan. There was no real contest in mass manoeuvre warfare. But in neither case did they come close to a strategic win. Ultimately - for different reasons in each - the occupation was unwinnable so it became a question of when to cut losses and withdraw.
What is Russia's strategic aim?
1. To either take over the governing of Ukraine directly or to intimidate so that the Kiev government meekly obeys and Ukraine becomes a vassal state.
2. By success in Ukraine to intimidate and threaten other Eastern European countries to follow Moscow's line.
They are nowhere close to either at the moment. Ukraine will never surrender. Why? Well, partly because of pride etc. but mostly because the Russians treat Ukrainians so badly they would rather die than surrender. Ukraine has managed to hold off the mighty Red Army for 2 years. The attrition of men and equipment on the Russian side is massive.
This has had interesting effects. Other countries are less fearful of Russia than they were. Putin's influence through fear has fallen. So strategically it's an abject failure. Even if Russian forces could reach Kiev, the best they could hope for is a decade or more of guerrilla fighting against their occupation, with the further attrition caused by that.
Russia can't win from here, as things stand. Strategic victory is a long way off and their fighting capability is massively degraded.
But Ukraine needs a lot of help to push them back. Help they are not currently getting, I think. But it's a mistake to think this means that Ukraine is doomed to defeat. It means it's doomed to a bloody and horrific stalemate.
Russia's progress is always a disappointing thing to see but it does not mean that victory is close. In the same way it didn't six months ago. Or a year ago. Or two years ago. Russia is stuck. If they're really lucky they can hold onto some of Eastern Ukraine. That's up for detail in moral and geopolitical terms but it's all they've got militarily at the moment.
Comments
Trump makes a good point about NATO. All Nato countries should be paying at least 2%
In fairness to the Swiss they have been taking seriously their defence against invasion for a long time. I think they decommissioned a lot after the Cold War ended but they've put some serious thought into it. Ireland, I think, would be asking "protection"? From what exactly? Ireland has been threatened by invaders from one place and one place only for the last thousand years or so: its larger neighbour across the Irish Sea. Whatever intentions Putin may have, they don't involve attacking Ireland.
I'd like to see Russian ships and planes try to get there.
I wouldn't. Because that would mean an even more major conflict had broken out.
1) I know he asked his advisers about leaving, and meant it. He imagines Europe would have to do a deal with him to defend itself against Russia; Europe's self interest would serve America's twice, as it's first line of defence against Russia and making money out of a competitor. What he thinks about Europe actually becoming non-aligned, as neutral as Austria, and the threat to US interests that represents as Ukraine, Moldova and the Baltic states fall, as Serbia rises I don't know. But my guess is 'shrug', to a non-quantifiable possibility.
2) I can find no reference to Apex APCs. And it would be air, airborne, mechanized, naval, amphibious, combined arms and operations. No risky Black Sea carrier groups needed. Risky because as Russian forces are annihilated, after their battlefield nuclear attack on Ukraine to satisfy Russian hawks in a scenario I can't now envisage, they would be strongly tempted to use nuclear torpedoes and/or cruise or ballistic nuclear missiles on NATO Black Sea forces as a Parthian shot. Such forces would have to operate from the Med at first anyway. If they nuked NATO navies in the Black Sea, what do we do next? I would suggest nothing. The Med...
3) I hear what you say, as it's true about $defence >> $offence (which is why Trump must protect Europe in Ukraine), but NATO $offence is way above Russia's $defence.
I hope we never have occasion to prove the NATO is better than Russia, though I agree it is probably true, even if it is, any war between the two is still going to be utterly devastating.
The middle parts of the country will then be disputed for many years to come.
The Ukrainians won't recover Crimea, but they'll hold on to their western provinces. In the meantime, there'll be more cities destroyed, more casualties on both sides and misery all round.
The Ukraine's only chance now is for Trump to lose the US election - which for all @Gramps49's protestations doesn't appear as certain as he hopes.
I'm sure the Ukraine will continue to do damage to the Black Sea fleet and hit targets inside Russia but the chances of them launching a counter-offensive and driving the Russians back across the border look pretty slim. And if NATO does put boots on the ground or more US-supplied weaponry then that pushes Putin's finger closer to the button.
The Global South isn't supporting Kyiv. Russia's weathering the sanctions through trade with China. It has pals in Beijing, Pyongyang, Tehran and Delhi.
Sorry @Gramps49 I'd like you to be right on this one but I don't think you are.
We're all between a rock and a hard place. This one is going to rumble on and on and on.
If he’s already used a nuke then there are only two options left open to the rest of the world - appease him or destroy him.
As long as he hasn’t used one we can pretend that all the diplomatic and military options in the middle are still open.
Para 1. 100%
Para 2. In what way?
Para 3. Yep. Yep. Nope. Nope. Yep.
Para 4. they could do a lot better under Trump. They're doing worse under Biden.
Para 5 1/2 Yep. 2/2 i/ii Nope. ii/ii Nope.
Para 6 Yep.
...
You wrote:
First of all, my views of the coming election is not a protestation, but a prognostication based on trends I have previously listed, namely, no Republican has won a significant special election, or in your terms by-election, in the last four years. Other than the border issue; the next big issue will be reproductive rights of women. In the last four years, anytime it was come up in the form of an initiative the freedom of choice has been affirmed by the people. In regard to the border issue, look for Biden to make some executive directs based on the proposed legislation the Senate has passed, but the Representatives are holding hostage. Our economy has settled down significantly. Inflation is around 3.4%. We have nearly full employment. I am looking for interest rates to be reduced before the election which will free up more money. On the other hand, Trump's numbers are soft. He claimed a significant victory in Michigan; but, in reality Hailey did get 40% of the vote. Many of those votes are the never Trump people. Polls also indicate there would be a significant drop in his support if he is convicted of a felony, but it state or federal. We know he paid Stormy Daniels hush money to hide a sexual affair and he cooked the books to hide it. What makes it a felony is he is accused of doing it for the purpose of interfering with a federal election. This trial will start on March 25 and will last about six weeks according to the court calendar. By the first part of June, we may his poll numbers to drop significantly. Then there are the civil lawsuits he has to deal with. He does not have the liquid cash to even post the required bonds as he appeals those decisions. The New York GA is now saying, in regard to the state case, she will start seizin by the end of the month. In regard uo the liable lawsuit, look for the plaintiff to begin collections proceedings as well. Trump's reported wealth will vanish before the election, and nobody likes a loser.
In regards to Ukraine: no, I think it is hard for Ukraine to be able to regain the offense. I believe Biden is now working behind the scenes to see if Putin is ready to come to the table. Putin will have the upper hand. Ukraine should expect to lose the Eastern provinces. But Kiev will have some expectations of its own, like the promise to apply for NATO membership. It will be hard to get, considering Hungary's attitude. If anything, Ukraine has shown how vulnerable the Russian forces really are. It will take a number of years for Russia to restore its strength.
In the case of Ukraine, all we can hope for is a draw. But in the case of the election, there are too many negatives for Trump to win.
But we're not pretending this. Rather we are saying that we are taking certain military options off the table and won't even consider them. Why? because we are frightened of conflict with Russia. Reasonable inference Putin can make - "appease him" is much more likely than "destroy him" under any circumstances. All these arguments against starting WWIII apply even more after he has used nuclear weapons than before. Result - we encourage Putin to keep going, perhaps we even make it more likely that he goes nuclear because he has less reason to believe in any threatened consequences.
Do you know something the rest of us don't, @Gramps49 ?
Nay bother. What an appalling waste of taxpayers' money.
It's true on paper. No pudding eating proof is necessary. They're so weak, Ingushetia is kicking off. That weakness must not be pushed by the West. It has no business doing so, only strengthening Ukraine defensively by an order of magnitude. That can be done regardless of the Whitehouse. Ukraine does not have the manpower to regain its lost 20% Firepower cannot achieve that, even German Taurus cruise missiles to cut the Kerch bridge.
Russia needs an excuse not to keep wasting blood and treasure. How does Putin turn the impossibility of assimilating all of Ukraine in to victory? Institutionalizing the frozen forever war like the Mexican Revolution?
As long as Putin has that, for the next 10-15 years, it is the best of all possible worlds.
It is not necessary or proportionate to destroy Putin, if in some unimaginable scenario he nukes Ukraine. Destroy him why? And how? It is only necessary and proportionate to annihilate his Ukrainian and Black Sea forces. His move. His only friend by then being King Wrong Un.
I hope you are right. I'm.prepared to be shown otherwise but you appear to have modified your initial optimistic forecasts of almost imminent Ukrainian victory and the recovery of the Crimea and the eastern territories.
From this side of the Pond, Trump's support seems to show no sign of diminishing despite his moral bankruptcy. Although financial bankruptcy would certainly derail him.
Thing is, I can remember when everyone seemed to be saying that Trump's first Presidency was an impossibility. Then the unthinkable happened.
I'm not saying he is definitely going to be re-elected, even from within a prison cell or without a dime to his name. But your sunny optimism about the success of Ukrainian counter-offensives did not prove justified.
Sure, that doesn't mean we should now fear the worst. None of us have a crystal ball, though.
I think, sadly, that all we can safely say is that there will be more bloodshed, more destruction, more lives ruined and more and more resentment, miayrust and hostility stored up for decades to come.
I'll buy that to some extent, but feel they'd have held more ground rather than recovering more areas they'd previously lost.
There'd still be the kind of stalemate we have now, but perhaps with more territory in Ukrainian hands.
Gramps has explained his reasoning in previous posts and it is certainly a rational argument. And to be fair, this assertion here is being made in the context of people asserting that Trump will win without any evidence to support that assertion.
I agree with Gramps' reasoning but I don't hold the conclusion as firmly as he appears to. I do think Trump won't win but I will also not deny the possibility, nor the very worrying consequences if he does.
AFZ
That is not true.
I agree with you to some extent. It is true that Europe and the USA are not doing all they could. That is foolish and short-sighted.
I do believe Ukraine is fighting our war. Stopping Russia will cost so much less now than later.
However, it's more than a little hyperbolic to suggest Trump would be no worse. Quite apart from the material difference of cutting off all aid completely, the lack of hope of any help coming and the open encouragement to Putin would be huge.
AFZ
Come January, only with him in power, Ukraine will be better off than it is now; they and Russia settle, or Trump supplies Ukraine more than ever until they do.
sOhhhh. I'm wrong; I'm not hyperbolic.
That all depends on NATO being more than a paper tiger. I will take Russia five years to re-arm.
If Trump gets another term Putin will have every encouragement to think that NATO is a paper tiger. Actually, not even a paper tiger, since Trump consistently casts doubt on the US commitment to it.
And I bet Russia could re-arm sufficiently in less than five years.
I'm sure it could if Europe does nothing. It's up to Europe.
It is! So why would Ukraine be better off with a settlement? That just encourages Europe to wishfully think that maybe we don't have to do anything much after all!
Better off than being continuously eroded. Europe refuses to defend itself. Why should America one step removed?
I absolutely agree with the final two sentences. But not the one before.
What, that Ukraine isn't losing, dying death by a thousand cuts until January at least?
Ah well, I'm glad we agree 2 out of 3.
That's all the excuse Europe needs to do nothing.
White flag, white smoke -maybe he got a bit muddled up...
Under Biden Congress refuses to aid Ukraine. Europe can't because it won't. And according to Orban Trump now won't.
So if Biden wins in 8 months, that gives him 2 years to the mid terms (when he loses Congress) to arm Ukraine?
How much will Ukraine lose between the rasputitsas? With no ammunition?
What can possibly stop Ukraine being Russian by Christmas?
Some of what you say makes sense but the constant predictions of Russian inevitable victory are clearly ridiculous. I've lost count but it must be approaching 3 figures, the number of times you've stated that Russian victory is inevitable and very close.
Even if the West cut all aid now, Russia won't win this year.
Should the West do more? Absolutely.
Is Russia on the verge of total victory?
Nope. Strategically, they're still nowhere.
Sounds good.
If Ukraine can survive the summer.
But doubt they can average a sortie a day. Or two. Days. When they could over 30 years ago in Desert Storm. And where are they going to get the ground crew, spares and ammo?
As the GI says in Pacific when everyone else is talking religion, 'I believe in ammunition'.
Which they don't have. Which is, er, why they're losing.
Maybe Francis was being prescient. Or just real.
And @alienfromzog, I thought I was the hyperbole merchant?
Russia . is . winning.
Making progress towards their aims, yes. Winning? I'm not sure. And if the rest of Europe and the US increased their supplies of weaponry to Ukraine to any significant extent the balance would I think tilt the other way.
I find following this war tricky as there is a paucity of reliable information. I have seen reports of Russian shell production being ramped up. I have also seen credible critics note that Russians over massively overstating their production capacity.
However, the wider point is that whilst the war is horrendous and Ukraine desperately needs peace, and I think it will go on for a lot longer, I do not think there's any sign of Russia winning.
I am not a military expert or a military strategist but I have read a lot and there's a concept that I think helps to understand these complex analyses. Essentially, this model of thinking is to look at the strategic aims rather than the tactical.
A good counterpoint on this is that the US and allies won easily in Iraq in 2003 and in Afghanistan. There was no real contest in mass manoeuvre warfare. But in neither case did they come close to a strategic win. Ultimately - for different reasons in each - the occupation was unwinnable so it became a question of when to cut losses and withdraw.
What is Russia's strategic aim?
1. To either take over the governing of Ukraine directly or to intimidate so that the Kiev government meekly obeys and Ukraine becomes a vassal state.
2. By success in Ukraine to intimidate and threaten other Eastern European countries to follow Moscow's line.
They are nowhere close to either at the moment. Ukraine will never surrender. Why? Well, partly because of pride etc. but mostly because the Russians treat Ukrainians so badly they would rather die than surrender. Ukraine has managed to hold off the mighty Red Army for 2 years. The attrition of men and equipment on the Russian side is massive.
This has had interesting effects. Other countries are less fearful of Russia than they were. Putin's influence through fear has fallen. So strategically it's an abject failure. Even if Russian forces could reach Kiev, the best they could hope for is a decade or more of guerrilla fighting against their occupation, with the further attrition caused by that.
Russia can't win from here, as things stand. Strategic victory is a long way off and their fighting capability is massively degraded.
But Ukraine needs a lot of help to push them back. Help they are not currently getting, I think. But it's a mistake to think this means that Ukraine is doomed to defeat. It means it's doomed to a bloody and horrific stalemate.
Russia's progress is always a disappointing thing to see but it does not mean that victory is close. In the same way it didn't six months ago. Or a year ago. Or two years ago. Russia is stuck. If they're really lucky they can hold onto some of Eastern Ukraine. That's up for detail in moral and geopolitical terms but it's all they've got militarily at the moment.
YMMV, of course.
AFZ